Bjarne on: Dark Energy, only an illusion.

[MRC_Hans]

Fine then we both agree none of us really know what “curved space “really is.

Due to the fact that you don’t know what curved space really is, you also can not know how a photon follows “something” that you really don’t know what is, right ?

Wrong. Let me explain in a way you should be able to understand:

We have a house.

Person A knows the house inside out, he has exact maps and drawings of the house, he has been in nearly all the rooms, BUT he does not quite know what is inside the walls or exactly how the underground foundations look.

Person B has only fair idea of what the front of the house looks like, he has never been inside, and he has very little idea of how houses are built.

Are person B's ideas of how the walls and foundation are made equally good ans those of A?

...

The answer is no.

So the conclusion is: Yes space deforms round a gravitionel field, we don’t know exactly what it happens with space, and hence we also don’t know how a photon “know” the difference between what we “call” the curvature of space .

Bjarne, your ideas are bunk. The very least we must require of even a thesis is that it makes sense. Yours doesn't.

I mean exactly like the word; “cow”, - not explain an alien what a cow really is. In the same way we also don’t know what “curved space” really is, before we at least have much more information, (exactly like I can see you know a lot about cows. )

I told you that your quota of the word 'cow' has been used up. Don't mention it again.

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

The question is not only whether space curves or not, or if a better expression should be used, - but the question rather is we anyway do not understand what happens, when it "urves" or what ever it does.

So how can we judge which expression is the most suitable.

Depends. If 'we' includes you, we have no idea. If it means everyone besides you, we know quite a lot.

It could be true that space curves because it is absorbed by matter, could't it ?

No, it could not. The idea makes no sense at all. If space was something that could be absorbed, we should be able to observe it. Where should all that space come from, and where do you imagine it goes, after being absorbed? What is the energy that 'moves' this space?

This would also bring light to a better expression of gravity waves, which then only is released contracted space.

No. Not at all. You can't have it streaming both ways.

Cows does that too.

From now on, every time you write the word 'cow, I'm going to ignore the rest of that post. I recommend others to do the same.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

Person A knows the house inside out, he has exact maps and drawings of the house, he has been in nearly all the rooms, BUT he does not quite know what is inside the walls or exactly how the underground foundations look.

Inside the house is mostly space, and I am sure A have no idear of what this is.
At his feet space is curving more than at he is head.
I am sure that he also really doesn’t understand what that mean, or how it happens.

If space was something that could be absorbed, we should be able to observe it

You can and you call it matter.

Where should all that space come from,

Maybe the same place cows com from.

and where do you imagine it goes, after being absorbed?

I just wrote it, - absorbed space IS matter.

What is the energy that 'moves' this space?

The strong force / interaction, - pull and push, keeps it contracted as matter, a side effect is gravity.
http://www.science27.com/english/quantum_physics.html

Hans you forgot to answer these questions

• What is curvature of space made of ?
• Does space have some kind of structure or how can it curve ?
• What is a gravity wave made of?
• Why does a gravity wave move with the speed of light?
• What make curved space move with the speed of light (gravity waves) ?
• Are there any similarities to the expanding Universe / space and gravity waves?
• Is space nothing or something?

Few days ago you wrote I always could answer you. - At least answer these;

• What is a gravity-wave made of? ( Curved Space ?)
• How and why does gravity-wave moves with the speed of light? ( Is it released curvature in fast motion ? - Or how [silly] would you express it. )
• What make curved space move with the speed of light (gravity waves) ?

Unless you can answer these simple basic question , how can I believe your know anything about what curved space really is, (except rubber sheet fantasy.). ?

Muuuhh

 

[Paul]

The question is not only whether space curves or not, or if a better expression should be used,

Good, you can stop making a fool of yourself then.

but the question rather is we anyway do not understand what happens, when it "urves" or what ever it does.

Or perhaps you can't.

So how can we judge which expression is the most suitable.

The one everyone but you is quite happy with.

“Space-time” is only a superficial and almost empty expression for something we almost not really have understood..

From the link you obviously couldn't be bothered to read:

Einstein eventually identified the property of spacetime which is responsible for gravity as its curvature. Space and time in Einstein's universe are no longer flat (as implicitly assumed by Newton) but can pushed and pulled, stretched and warped by matter. Gravity feels strongest where spacetime is most curved, and it vanishes where spacetime is flat. This is the core of Einstein's theory of general relativity, which is often summed up in words as follows: "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved spacetime tells matter how to move"
​

So you still believe there are some kinds of invisible rails in space.

It's your idea, why should anyone else even consider it.

 

[Paul]

Inside the house is mostly space, and I am sure A have no idear of what this is.

It's space. Except, of course, it's not the space you mean, because it's in a house on earth.

At his feet space is curving more than at he is head.
I am sure that he also really doesn’t understand what that mean, or how it happens.

I'm sure, even given his fictional status, he understands it at least as well as you.

You can and you call it matter.

Not us earthlings.

Maybe the same place cows com from.

That's where we've been going wrong, it's not methane cows produce, it's space.

I just wrote it, - absorbed space IS matter.

Argument from unsupported gibberish is not a recognised scientific method.

The strong force / interaction, - pull and push, keeps it contracted as matter, a side effect is gravity.

That's a terribly convenient side effect you've just invented there.

Hans you forgot to answer these questions

I think you'll find, if you actually read the posts, that they have been covered adequately.

What is a gravity-wave made of? ( Curved Space ?)

Almost. Spacetime.

How and why does gravity-wave moves with the speed of light?

How: via gravitons Why: because c is a limit which happens to be the speed of light.

( Is it released curvature in fast motion ? - Or how [silly] would you express it. )

I would never express it that silly.

What make curved space move with the speed of light (gravity waves) ?

What do you mean?

Unless you can answer these simple basic question , how can I believe your know anything about what curved space really is

I presume that you are perfectly capable of providing an explanation of the current state of knowledge, it being basic and all.

(except rubber sheet fantasy.). ?

What do you disagree with?

 

[Bjarne]

Now let discuss DARK Matter

How is the equation to calculate gravity inside and ouside a Galaxy ( disk)
I don't think any of you can answer, but let's try

 

[MRC_Hans]

Inside the house is mostly space, and I am sure A have no idear of what this is.
At his feet space is curving more than at he is head.
I am sure that he also really doesn’t understand what that mean, or how it happens.

Evasion noted.

You can and you call it matter.

(I asked where all the contaceted space went)
No, if matter consisted of contracted space, and kept contracting space, the mass of everything would keep rising. (And other impossible things would also happen)

Maybe the same place cows *remainder of post ignored*

Hans

 

[MRC_Hans]

Now let discuss DARK Matter

How is the equation to calculate gravity inside and ouside a Galaxy ( disk)
I don't think any of you can answer, but let's try

You are not qualified to discuss dark matter.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

No, if matter consisted of contracted space, and kept contracting space, the mass of everything would keep rising. (And other impossible things would also happen)

(I asked where all the contaceted space went)


No, if matter consisted of contracted space, and kept contracting space, the mass of everything would keep rising. (And other impossible things would also happen)

When elementary particles spin they contract space. This has fundamental importance for our understanding of quantum physics.
Pulling together, contracting 'elastic' space requires energy.

Therefore the energy of a particle must be proportional to the amount of space such a particle can pull together (bend/contract).

This also means that the spin of a particle has its culmination at the point at which space would absorb its entire energy. At such a point the extent of space contraction absorbs all the energy of a particle.

For each spinning particle there is a maximum level (culmination) of the amount of contraction of space it can generate.

Since the "elastic" space has ability to absorb the energy of a particle, it can absorb the entire energy of each particle. We can say that such a particle has "twisted its energy" into the elastic space or, in other words, that space has absorbed the energy of a particle.

This 'twisted' (elastic) space will release the absorbed energy and force a particle to spin (unwind). As the result, the particle begins to release 'twisting' space around it until a new culmination point is reached at the opposite end.

If one particle of a nucleus releases space, another particle immediately uses such released space for the opposite action (to contract space) because such cooperation saves energy.

This process continues in an endless cycle of repetitions, powered by the counterbalancing force imparted on the elastic space. What we see is really that space 'plays' with itself.

100 years ago there was a discussion between two teams of physicists.
On the one side Bohr, Rutherford and Heidelberg and on the other Einstein, Max Plank, and Schrödinger. The question was whether an electron was a particle or a wave.
This debate remains unsettled. A particle could at the same time behave as a particle and as a wave. Our new theory shines new light on this issue.

The culmination point of a particle's spin can be either the top of 'spin up' or the bottom of 'spin down' (point B). At both the B-points, the particle has maximum amassed space and minimum spin (speed).

In the middle position (at point A) the particle has maximum spin (speed) and minimum amassed space.

At point A the particle has strongest "wave" property and at point B the particle has strongest "particle" (corpuscular) nature.

This shows that a particle constantly oscillates between two states: a 'hard compressed space' (when it is perceived as a "hard particle") and a wave (when its spin is at the maximum but space amassed is at the minimum).

In other words, a particle constantly changes its 'shape' by oscillating between something "hard" (compressed amount of space) and "soft" (minimum of compressed space).

That is why an electron is both a particle and a wave nearly at the same time

Did you know that the mass of nuclears are much larger as the total mass of the quarks the nuclears consist of .?
Why ?
Because gravity is a result of interaction between nuclears.

PLEASE read this
http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~elster/research/dspin.html

and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

and this
Comparison with the photon
The photon is like the whirlpool:
Sourse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wave-particle_duality/Archive1


So in their theory elementary particles are not the fundamental building blocks of matter. Instead, they emerge as defects or “whirlpools” in the deeper organized structure of space-time.
Sourse ; http://jee.learnhub.com/questions/18573-Elementary-particles

Now ask where does the energy come from to these whirlpools and where does it goes
Answer ; interaction >> the strong force.
And that's the unified theory for gravity + the strong force.
So simple.

Now ask where the energy comes from to these whirlpools and where does it go..
Answer; interaction >> the strong force.
And that's the unified theory for gravity + the strong force.
This is what the strong force IS
So simple.

 

[MRC_Hans]

When elementary particles spin they contract space. This has fundamental importance for our understanding of quantum physics.

You don't understand quantum physics.

Pulling together, contracting 'elastic' space requires energy.

That would follow, yes.

Therefore the energy of a particle must be proportional to the amount of space such a particle can pull together (bend/contract).

Well, to this point, the logic holds, but seems irrelevant for gravity.

This also means that the spin of a particle has its culmination at the point at which space would absorb its entire energy. At such a point the extent of space contraction absorbs all the energy of a particle.

This would imply that the particle stops spinning.

For each spinning particle there is a maximum level (culmination) of the amount of contraction of space it can generate.

You just said that.

Since the "elastic" space has ability to absorb the energy of a particle, it can absorb the entire energy of each particle. We can say that such a particle has "twisted its energy" into the elastic space or, in other words, that space has absorbed the energy of a particle.

This is the third time you say it.

This 'twisted' (elastic) space will release the absorbed energy and force a particle to spin (unwind). As the result, the particle begins to release 'twisting' space around it until a new culmination point is reached at the opposite end.

Some kind of elementary yo-yo? However, we observe nothing of he kind, it still has no relevance for gravity, and it contradicts your 'spacewind'.

Also, it would require the whole function to be loss-free, otherwise the whole ting would simply stop after a number of cycles. However, since we can observe particle spin, it cannot be loss-free (you cannot observe something without taking energy from it).

If one particle of a nucleus releases space, another particle immediately uses such released space for the opposite action (to contract space) because such cooperation saves energy.

No gravity and, no spacewind, then. Gravity is unidirectional, so you can't explain it by a cyclic function.

This process continues in an endless cycle of repetitions, powered by the counterbalancing force imparted on the elastic space. What we see is really that space 'plays' with itself.

No, it must loose energy and come to a halt. - Or be unobservable.

100 years ago there was a discussion between two teams of physicists.
On the one side Bohr, Rutherford and Heidelberg and on the other Einstein, Max Plank, and Schrödinger. The question was whether an electron was a particle or a wave.

And you imagine you are smarter then those gentlemen?

This debate remains unsettled. A particle could at the same time behave as a particle and as a wave.

Duality. A particle IS both a particle and a wave, when it is in motion.

Our new theory shines new light on this issue.

*Our'?? You mean 'your', and it does not qualify as a theory, since it contradicts observation, and thus it shines no light.

http://www.science27.com/images/img_80.jpg

The culmination point of a particle's spin can be either the top of 'spin up' or the bottom of 'spin down' (point B). At both the B-points, the particle has maximum amassed space and minimum spin (speed).

So even if this could happen, to be loss-free, it would need to have no influence on the surroundings. Thus it would be unobservable. Thus it could not explain gravity or anything else.

In the middle position (at point A) the particle has maximum spin (speed) and minimum amassed space.

At point A the particle has strongest "wave" property and at point B the particle has strongest "particle" (corpuscular) nature.

This shows that a particle constantly oscillates between two states

What shows what? You have made some speculations, that shows exactly nothing.

: a 'hard compressed space' (when it is perceived as a "hard particle") and a wave (when its spin is at the maximum but space amassed is at the minimum).

In other words, a particle constantly changes its 'shape' by oscillating between something "hard" (compressed amount of space) and "soft" (minimum of compressed space).

That is why an electron is both a particle and a wave nearly at the same time

No, because that is not how an electron behaves, as a wave. If it did, it would be emitting an elecromagnetic wave when not in motion. It doesn't.

Now ask where does the energy function come from to these whirlpools and where does it goes
Answer ; interaction >> the strong force.
And that's the unified theory for gravity + the strong force.
So simple.

No. You have envisaged a pendulum-like function, but if you draw energy from a pendulum, it comes ot a halt.

Now ask where the energy comes from to these whirlpools and where does it go..
Answer; interaction >> the strong force.
And that's the unified theory for gravity + the strong force.
This is what the strong force IS
So simple.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Unfortunately, they make no sense. As I have said before, read up on thermodynamics. Once you understand thermodynamics (which is reasonably simple), revise your model so it obeys thermodynamics, and present what is left (if any).

If you can't understand themodynamics, forget about the whole thing, because the rest of physics will be way above your head.

Hans

 

[Bjarne]

This would imply that the particle stops spinning.

You could be right, but notice;

• The “un-spin” could easy continue the same direction, but the spin could collapse into itself and speed up when the particle was un-spinning.
• Quantum physics is beyond our understanding of time. – So your understanding (knowledge / proves / details ) of the process that happens, - to which time, - would anyway not be the full truth.

Some kind of elementary yo-yo?

I prefer the expression ; push and pull, so fast that the result is a constant vacuum in space, – that is = gravity.

However, we observe nothing of he kind, it still has no relevance for gravity, and it contradicts your 'spacewind'.

The SpaceWind is something completely different.
This is shortly; a space vacuum in motion.
A such will disturb everything that is connected to space.
But it have nothing with the 4 forces to do.

Also, it would require the whole function to be loss-free, otherwise the whole ting would simply stop after a number of cycles. However, since we can observe particle spin, it cannot be loss-free (you cannot observe something without taking energy from it).

It is most of the time “lose free” so that up and down spin is in perfect balance.
The electromagnetic force (electron) is the (last) space-oscillation-disturber-damper, and therefore also part of the process, - hence also united with the strong force and gravity.

In cases that are not “lose free”, you do have EM waves as a result.
These are only witnesses that tell you when the interaction process not is neutralized.

When a process is neutralized, you cannot measure any disturbances of space.
EM are only waves in space.
These does not interact with each other or with them self.
Therefore these so called “photons” are not interacting with space – these does not twist them self into space, but are only waves as waves on the ocean.
Hence these so called “photon-particles” does also not have gravity. These are ONLY waves.

The reason that these are part of the quantum physics, (which means; “small package-physic”) is that these are created as small package, in the interaction process.

So yes many times the process is losing energy, - But photons can deliver that energy back, for example when hitting a cow. – So in the end of the day, there are no loses.

Duality. A particle IS both a particle and a wave, when it is in motion.

If you ignore time, yes that’s correct.
If time is a fact, you can say the world is created and disappears in front of you eyes so fast that you believe it is constant.
But the world is in reality nothing but fast frequencies created in the interaction process.
You can split it all to “energy” – which means; absorbed space bound by the strong force / interaction.

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. Max Planck …

Just Beautiful.

If it did, it would be emitting an electromagnetic wave when not in motion. It doesn't

When an electron ”feels” vibration in the space density, it begin to dance with these disturbances.
We say it interact with itself.
This is in fact not completely true; the electron feels space disturbances exactly like many other particles also do.
We can say the electron is dancing a secondary dance with the strong force.
This is the way the electron in fact cancel out disturbances in space that else could have caused EM valves.
We can say that EM waves can be trapped and neutralized by the self interaction of electron orbits.

The EM waves are results of the nuclear interaction, and as you can see for you self many times electrons are not there to cancel out space vacuum disturbances...the result is EM valves of all kinds

 

[Paul]

You could be right, but notice;

Failure to respond and incredible arrogance noted.

The “un-spin” could easy continue the same direction, but the spin could collapse into itself and speed up when the particle was un-spinning.

Ah, a new property, particles can now spin in two directions at once.

The SpaceWind is something completely different.
This is shortly; a space vacuum in motion.
A such will disturb everything that is connected to space.
But it have nothing with the 4 forces to do.

Nothing you say lately makes any sense.

It is most of the time “lose free”

Handy, it's loss-free except when it isn't.

In cases that are not “lose free”, you do have EM waves as a result.

So it's extra lossy?

Hence these so called “photon-particles” does also not have gravity. These are ONLY waves.

I'll alert the Nobel committee immediately.

The reason that these are part of the quantum physics, (which means; “small package-physic”) is that these are created as small package, in the interaction process.

So yes many times the process is losing energy, - But photons can deliver that energy back, for example when hitting a cow. – So in the end of the day, there are no loses.

Nice bit of pointless gymnastics.

Just Beautiful.

Just a pointlessly misguided and unsuccessful attempt at appeal to authority

When an electron ”feels” vibration in the space density, it begin to dance with these disturbances.

What makes the space density vibrate?

We say it interact with itself.

No we don't.

 

[Bjarne]

Bjarne

The “un-spin” could easy continue the same direction, but the spin could collapse into itself and speed up when the particle was un-spinning.
Paul
Ah, a new property, particles can now spin in two directions at once.

Did you saw the word "same"

Bjarne
We say it interact with itself.
Paul
No we don't.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw4EzrVUnXM
http://jcp.aip.org/resource/1/jcpsa6/v133/i13/p134116_s1?isAuthorized=no
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n75t08776x46788k/

 

[MRC_Hans]

You could be right, but notice;

• The “un-spin” could easy continue the same direction, but the spin could collapse into itself and speed up when the particle was un-spinning.

If I had a dollar for every time somebody misunderstood and/or misused the term 'collapse' in connection with particle physics, I would be stinking rich.

Your sentence above makes no sense.

• Quantum physics is beyond our understanding of time. – So your understanding (knowledge / proves / details ) of the process that happens, - to which time, - would anyway not be the full truth.

Incomplete knowledge is very different from complete ignorance. And we have a qiote comprehensive understanding of time, also in connection with quantum physics.

I prefer the expression ; push and pull, so fast that the result is a constant vacuum in space, – that is = gravity.

No. You don't even understand your own model. Nothing is so fast that it is constant. That statement is nonsense.

The SpaceWind is something completely different.

And nonexisting.

This is shortly; a space vacuum in motion.
A such will disturb everything that is connected to space.

No.

It is most of the time “lose free” so that up and down spin is in perfect balance.

No, it is not, because you say it is the cause of gravity, which is very observable. At least TRY to get your story straight.

The electromagnetic force (electron) is the (last) space-oscillation-disturber-damper, and therefore also part of the process, - hence also united with the strong force and gravity.

Meaningless. You just string words together in a more or less random fashion now.

In cases that are not “lose free”, you do have EM waves as a result.
These are only witnesses that tell you when the interaction process not is neutralized.

No, because you say it is gravity. You can't both claim the process is loss free AND that it is gravity.

When a process is neutralized, you cannot measure any disturbances of space.

Then it is not gravity.

EM are only waves in space.

Wrong. EM waves is energy.

These does not interact with each other or with them self.

The certainly interact with themselves.

Therefore these so called “photons” are not interacting with space – these does not twist them self into space, but are only waves as waves on the ocean.

If they don't interact with space, how come they are deflected by gravity?

Hence these so called “photon-particles” does also not have gravity. These are ONLY waves.

Yes, they have gravity and they interact with a gravity field. Gravitational lensing has already been mentioned here. Try to pay attention.

The reason that these are part of the quantum physics, (which means; “small package-physic”) is that these are created as small package, in the interaction process.

Does not parse.

So yes many times the process is losing energy, - But photons can deliver that energy back, for example when hitting a cow

Remainder of post not read.

Hans

 

[Paul]

Did you saw the word "same"

Yes, did you read what you wrote?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw4EzrVUnXM

Did you just google self-interaction and post anything that came up?

 

[MRC_Hans]

So, should we sum up?

Bjarne's model seems to entail the following claims (I have only included such claims that were not obscured by bovine references):

1) Space has a kind of 'fabric' that interacts with the spin of elementary particles.

- This is a thesis that can neither be confirmed nor denied at present.

2) Gravity is due to a cyclical attraction and release of 'space fabric', coupled to a cyclical ("very fast") spin-up and spin down of particles. The proces is mostly loss-free and unobservable.

Questions:
- How can the function cause gravity and be unobservable and loss-free at the same itme?
- Why can we not observe that particles keep changing spin.
- How fast is "very fast" exactly?

3) An additional, and somewhat elusive, claim is 'space wind' which is supposed to be "space vacuum in motion" presumably caused by the spin interaction mentioned above.

Questions:
- How can there be a "space vacuum" when space is constantly released?
- Is the 'space wind' some sort of double direction thingy?
- What exactly is the effect of the 'space wind' (how is it supposed to be observable)?
- Once the contraction/release function does loose energy, for various reasons, what happens to particles that have lost their spin?

3) There are sporadic mentions of EM waves.

Question:
- How exactly do EM waves, which behave differently from gravity fit into the model?

As can be seen, the models has more holes than substance. Some claim appear to be contradictory, all claims seel to lack observational support, and some are even contradicted by observation. Also, the whole thermodynamic issue remains unresolved.

Perhaps, Bjarne, you could try to fill in the blanks? Or at the very least clear up the apparant contradictions?

Hints:
- Avoid introducing new, ad hoc, claims which will only complicate the picture.
- At all cost avoid bovine references.

Hans

 

[Bishadi]

Quote:
100 years ago there was a discussion between two teams of physicists.
On the one side Bohr, Rutherford and Heidelberg and on the other Einstein, Max Plank, and Schrödinger. The question was whether an electron was a particle or a wave.

And you imagine you are smarter then those gentlemen?

hans,

you forget, anyone now a days can read all their work and most of what they ever read, in a couple months and then have 100 yrs of experimental evidence since to combine, compare and spit out the thread title;

Dark Energy, -only and illusion!


the problem you are having is you think they are gods or maybe that they were talking to god (like moses) and everything they did, is godlike!


but to address you with your question, you aint even close to curious jorge (because he learned from the mistakes)

 

[Paul]

hans,

you forget, anyone now a days can read all their work...

Do you perhaps have a comprehensible point?

 

[MRC_Hans]

hans,

you forget, anyone now a days can read all their work and most of what they ever read, in a couple months and then have 100 yrs of experimental evidence since to combine,

That would be nice. Unfortunately, in this case, it doesn't apply; Bjarne has only, at best, read schreds of the works of great scientists, and he has understood less. If you had followed these discussions instead of just jumping in with snide remars, you could hardly have avoided to notice that Bjarne doesn't even master simple mathematical rules, such as the fact that you cannot have different units on two sides of an equation.

compare and spit out the thread title;

Dark Energy, -only and illusion!

And thereby show htat they understand next to nothing.

the problem you are having is you think they are gods or maybe that they were talking to god (like moses) and everything they did, is godlike!

No. They are no gods. However, their work has been scrutinized by greater minds than yours or mine for decades, and had there been any serious flaws, they would have been discovered.

but to address you with your question, you aint even close to curious jorge (because he learned from the mistakes)

Then Bjarne must be learning a LOT!

Hans

 

[Bishadi]

Do you perhaps have a comprehensible point?

sure.... that a kid could be smaughter than most any one of them guys named by hans.



perhaps a new thread "common sense vs IQ", which do you prefer?